Linus is mentioned on Wikipedia

[Killermidget42]

https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/PCI_Express&ved=0ahUKEwi1sYXf3LLWAhUGUrwKHcdICsAQFghsMAs&usg=AFQjCNFXd3gW60vtlLFiofkiXoKxkavKTQ

 

[Drak3]

Didn't know a single test equated to an absolute answer. Especially by a channel that has gotten bad results through botched and/or inconclusive testing before.

 

Pyo.

[SansVarnic]

LTT is legit. 

~Wikipedia

[GDRRiley]

Linus has a page on him what is your point. the also need to add in shielded cable 

[minibois]

Citation needed

[dalekphalm]

Yeah they didn't test latency or really anything beyond "does it work?"

 

I wish that the max pcie video had been more in depth. I still hope they'll do a follow up. 

[Syntaxvgm]

Cool and all, but not really a thorough test. It may not even be the limit purely because of the distance. I really would like to see the limit with someone giving them additional shielding and making sure the 75w from the slot is powered near the card, not from the mobo as it was in the video IIRC. Something like that. Still crazy they got it to work that well.

 

I would love the opportunity to have a bunch of these dumped in my hands and play with them. It's really interesting to me whether the limit is power, signal latency, emi,  or signal degradation (and if that can be boosted with some kind of powered adapter)

[vanished]

Why isn't there a citation after that claim linking to the video?

 

Also, there's many other issues but they've been pointed out already

[Syntaxvgm]

2 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

Why isn't there a citation after that claim linking to the video?

 

Also, there's many other issues but they've been pointed out already

yah

I mean to be clear I'm not like shitting on the LTT video, being thorough and scientific wasn't the point. It was clearly "hey I wonder how many of these we can daisy chain?". So odd they'd add this to a wikipedia page. 

 

I almost wonder if this was added for like some marketing purpose? Like some company that sells extensions wanted people that look at the wiki page for it see "it clearly works at 3 meters so there will be no performance loss at a few inches"

Maybe I'm paranoid. 

[vanished]

8 minutes ago, Syntaxvgm said:

yah

I mean to be clear I'm not like shitting on the LTT video, being thorough and scientific wasn't the point. It was clearly "hey I wonder how many of these we can daisy chain?". So odd they'd add this to a wikipedia page. 

 

I almost wonder if this was added for like some marketing purpose? Like some company that sells extensions wanted people that look at the wiki page for it see "it clearly works at 3 meters so there will be no performance loss at a few inches"

Maybe I'm paranoid. 

The change was added Aug 31 by 93.238.47.111 as far as I can tell (this is all super public btw, just go to the wiki page).  What's not public is who on the forum that might be, but actually it's no one (I think I can say that safely).

[NumLock21]

There is a wikipedia article written about him.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linus_Sebastian

[SansVarnic]

LMG is also recognized on the IMDB website as well.

[vanished]

37 minutes ago, NumLock21 said:

There is a wikipedia article written about him.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linus_Sebastian

That's not surprising, it's just a biography.  Many famous people have one.  What's strange about the bit of info in this post is they seem to have accepted it into the article as scientific data, despite the fact that a) it isn't, and b) they didn't even cite the video they saw it in.

[Skanky Sylveon]

20 hours ago, Drak3 said:

Didn't know a single test equated to an absolute answer. Especially by a channel that has gotten bad results through botched and/or inconclusive testing before.

 

Pyo.

Anyone can edit a Wikipedia page correct?

[Drak3]

Just now, Cinnabar Sonar said:

Anyone can edit a Wikipedia page correct?

Depends on the topic. Wikipedia started monitoring activity to prevent slander, so some topics require sources to be sumbitted to make changes and have to be reviewed before updating the article.

Pyo.

[Skanky Sylveon]

Just now, Drak3 said:

Depends on the topic. Wikipedia started monitoring activity to prevent slander, so some topics require sources to be sumbitted to make changes and have to be reviewed before updating the article.

Pyo.

I'm assuming that this topic isn't the case?  While I wouldn't call it slander, I wouldn't say that most of Linus's videos aren't scientifically accurate.  More testing is needed before one can definitely say that 3 meters is the maximum.

[Drak3]

Just now, Cinnabar Sonar said:

I'm assuming that this topic isn't the case?

I doubt it, those topics usually deal with religion, a religious group trying to slander something backed by science because it disagrees with their religion, or hate/fear mongering.

 

Pyo.

[Skanky Sylveon]

Just now, Drak3 said:

I doubt it, those topics usually deal with religion, a religious group trying to slander something backed by science because it disagrees with their religion, or hate/fear mongering.

 

Pyo.

...  Some people have too much time on their hands.

[vanished]

1 minute ago, Nicholatian said:

Hate speech has always been a funny one. I can’t wait to see it backfire and blow up in the faces of those who implemented it for their little “protected classes”… hating people who practise hate speech is also hate speech, ironically enough. The charade will not last.

I think what they're talking about isn't censoring or pushing a particular viewpoint (though they could easily use this mechanism to do so) but just the fact some pages are locked so you can't edit them at will and have your edits show up live.  Pages that are likely to get a lot of trolling are protected more closely to only let through "real" updates.